Music theory is not a rule book, it’s the study of the evolution of “common practice” - the how’s and why’s of music.

From it, we can begin to assemble a “tool kit” that allows us to solve compositional problems - things like:

Modes, scales, voicings, harmonic development (chords), functional vs non-functional harmony, form, structure, rhythm and much more!

Looking forward to helping out

When trying to find corresponding chords/scales lets not forget the circle of fiths.

Hey, all right! It happened! And kudos for a great summary, @ Sharp11 – Like I have told many, many students over the years: music theory is not a prescription for what to do or how to do it. It isn't a set of rules, even if some people have framed it that way before. It's language to try to describe cool sounds, which is inherently a pretty abstract thing, and it's somewhat miraculous how effectively we can do it. The music came first... the "theory" is the discourse that followed. But if it sounds good, it's good, even if it's hard to find the language to describe why.

I hope this subforum can help some good people to broaden their horizons, increase their aural powers, and make some good music.

Damn, I feel guilty already. One of more than a few things I learned, but never used. We all find our short cuts

I am all messed up in church modes.

I'm in the middle---I always want to know enough about how things work, in order to get better. But I also don't want to know too much about how things work, because there's a sort of mystery that comes from creativity. I like knowing the keys--especially major chords/ minor chords, major seventh/ minor sevenths, scales and things like that. But as far as reading, it's not for me--tried it and felt it was taking away from creativity.

Another analogy is that the notes are the words, and the melodies are the sentences. When we're learning to talk, we make noises that approximate the ones that we are trying to emulate. Eventually they turn into coherent words, and then once we get better at the understanding of words and how to use them, then the sentences get better and more descriptive in communicating with others. Ever wonder how you use certain words that you never expected to use in a conversation? I feel that the musical equivalent, for me, has to be the same way....there has to be some sort of unconcious delineation and reabsorbtion of what is influencing you and how it is arriving it in non-linear ways.

Following your analogy of words and sentences, reading music is much the same. Reading doesn't necessarily supposed to help you in your own creativity, but instead allows you to see the creativity of others. Just like reading a sentence tells you what someone else is saying, reading music can do the same. Now of course you could also simply listen to the sentence just like you could simply listen to the music.

Reading and writing music allows you to share with others. In the past before recording technology, this was the only way you could share your music without actually having to be there to perform it.

Each of us must, of course, find what's right for us, and I certainly won't tell you what's right for you.

For me, the more I learn about the processes behind the music I love, the more I realize there is I don't know, opening up beautiful mysteries I couldn't otherwise have realized were there.

I tend to take Richard Feynman's approach to enjoying art: He knew, intimately, the physics involved in perceiving the colors of a beautiful flower, but that awareness just made the flower even more mysterious and beautiful.

(I also, admittedly, know some absolutely phenomenal, brilliant musicians who are terrible at reading music... But they can hear and aurally understand everything.)

Pragmatist here. As I see it, there is only one greater freedom than no rules in music, and that is rules you can choose to follow or not any time a day. It would have been impossible to come up with our music without training, but no concept ever forced me to do anything. My choice, my freedom. I am solely to blame if it sounds like crap, not my theory books.

Kindly
Gothi

Yes, for sure!

All great points. Most of the time, entire sections of choruses will come to me--vocal melodies with three part harmonies, strings, etc. Yesterday, a fully formed chorus came to me even with the bass lines, and even to capo the guitar at the second fret to turn the A chord into a B (would have normally been A, G, D, but becomes B, A, E). Sometimes I can identify a song by the key by ear, but most of the time I still have to figure it out. For some reason, I find that a bit of struggle to figure it out (ie: also, was the song dropped a half step, was it capo'd? etc) makes me have to work to understand why things are the way they are.

I love songs in the key of E--great key for reflective songs, especially about loss--but E flat seems to be a bit better in that regard. Sometimes E is a bit too bright sounding. Also seems to suit a vocal range a bit better in many cases.

Those two chords you mention, the A and B, are open intervals of a minor 7th and perfect 5th, sort of representing sus chords, but since they don’t have a 3rd, we can’t identify them as major or minor - a nice sound that’s ambiguous.

Open intervals are great for ambiguity, as long as you know the mode (or scale, key) you’re in, and avoid an identifiable 3rd, you can play with those notes, even invert them. The often mentioned “steely dan chord”, is really just three notes voiced as perfect 4ths, but inverted into 2nd position. So, bottom up, three notes in fourths: F, Bb, Eb, becomes Eb,F, Bb! Voila, an Eb2 chord.

This voicing is great for moving around - no 3rds keep it ambiguous and non- functional.

Edit: The Dan’s would also play this as an Eb2/G, which is a bit different sounding and less ambiguous as the 3rd is introduced in the bass voice.

There's a great tune from a 1990s John McLaughlin record that makes conspicuous use of that voicing. It's a record I've listened to so many hundreds of times that I have no choice but to think of it as "the John McLaughlin" chord, but I might be the only one on earth!

(It's somewhere in here, at any rate...)

The late Jim Beard is on that, he sounds great there.

This was one of the first things I ever heard from Maestro Beard, decades ago. One of the greatest of all time, I'm profoundly sad he's gone and grateful for what he left us. Aside from his work with McLaughlin, Shorter, Brecker, etc, his albums "Song of the Sun" and "Advocate" will always be favorites of mine.

His comping on this particular track, though, is a bit of a Rosetta Stone for playing keys in this style, in particular. And he's the reason I can't help but love '90s digital Roland EP sounds!

I know what you mean about the style and sound.

I saw Jim with Pat Metheny in New Haven CT back pwhen Pat was doing his “secret story” tour - Jim had to fill the seat of Lyle Mays on “First Circle”, a tough task for anyone, you could sense he was uncomfortable in the “wow, I’ve got big shoes to fill here” way, but he pulled it off and gave it his own voice.

Cool. You know more than me about the mechanics of those chords......A or A minor is arguably my favorite, because there's several ways that you can go with it, either higher or lower, and it retains a really good feel.